W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > July 2006

Re: For-each question

From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 09:57:19 +0100
Message-ID: <44C48B6F.5060402@jenitennison.com>
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org

Hi Alex,

Alex Milowski wrote:
> Norman Walsh wrote:
>> / Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.org> was heard to say:
>> | I'd call this an error.  The for-each is like a mini-pipeline and
>> | needs to have that extra input declared:
>>
>> Well, Jeni argued against that requirement.
> 
> Hmm... I guess I need to be refreshed of the reasons why we
> wouldn't do this.

My reasons for arguing against declaring all the inputs required by a 
<p:for-each> (or <p:choose>) are:

1. It's unnecessary (implementations can work out what extra inputs are 
required for themselves)

2. It's tedious for users

3. It's unlike iteration in other languages (you don't have to define 
all the variables used within a for loop in, say, Java)

Cheers,

Jeni
-- 
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com
Received on Monday, 24 July 2006 09:39:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:48 GMT